The other night I treated myself to a double helping of Werner Herzog cinema. BBC3 was having a Herzog night and showed Fitzcarraldo and Aguirre, Wrath of God one after the other! And then a documentary to bring us up to date with his more recent activities.

Why am I raving on like a lunatic about this non Hollywood, German film director whose most famous films are so idiosyncratic and away from the mainstream? Not because these two films generally crop up in most film critics top 20 films of all time. Not because both films contain the acting talents of Klaus Kinski, one of the most charismatic and spell binding (not to say unpredictable) presences on celluloid. No, you just have to watch the films to find out how special they are.

 I had seen Aguirre, Wrath of God, many years ago and it left an indelible impression on me. I just had to see it again. The story is based on a real event about a group of conquistadors fresh from defeating and enslaving the Incas in Peru and their search for El Dorado - the fabled city of gold - in the Peruvian jungles of the Amazon. The opening scene of the Spanish conquistadors trudging down the mountain into the Amazon jungle through the clouds is deliberately long with an electronic musical score and it sets the tone and pace for the rest of the film. As they trudge through the mud down into the jungle you have feelings of foreboding, that the jungle is ready to devour them physically and metaphorically. The canon gets stuck, the horsemen get caught in the jungle vines, the river looks menacing. Its not long before the nobles are arguing amongst themselves, and power struggles erupt with the hunch backed Aguirre plotting and conspiring. The expedition starts to devour itself and descend into madness.

What is so good about the film is the intensity of it. Kinski, in particular, is electric as the morose, treacherous and violent nobleman who eventually leads the doomed expedition further in to the jungle and madness. The cinematography is breath-taking with the merciless jungle and the raging river becoming major characters in the unfolding tragedy. It has epic pretensions but the encroaching jungle makes the film close in on itself. The conspiracies and power struggles are shown at close quarters. It explores the relationships between the classes - between the noblemen, the soldiers and the slaves. As it is based on the only surviving account of the expedition by a priest, there is also an examination of the realtionship between the state and the church. It looks real because it is real. The hardships were actual hardships for the actors. They really are miserable! No CGI or special effects here. Reality filmed well can be just as stunning. Long takes, no flash bang editing here. It sucks you in by osmosis. It gets under the skin. The finale shows the rapidly-unravelling raft floating down the river with the few remaining survivors after the indian attacks and the camera swoops in and flys in circles around the stricken craft whilst Aguirre rants at the jungle, the river and the dead bodies that surround him. An incredible death spiral image. Wow. If you can overcome the German dialogue and the sub titles I urge you to watch this film.

Just imagine. Immediately before Aguirre, Wrath of God, was Fitzcarraldo, an equally esoteric and eccentric piece of quality cinema. It has many of the features of Aguirre, Wrath of God. Kinski is on acting duty again but playing a much different character - an eccentric Irshman called Fitzgerald who buys a plot of rubber plantation land in the inaccessible Peruvian jungle. Everyone thinks he’s mad because he has no way of getting the rubber out of the impenetrable jungle. This is a much more uplifting story of one man’s insistence that the impossible can be made possible (with a little help from your friends). The jungle and the river are once again major players but not so malevolent this time and beautifully filmed. There are long takes and deep focus shots of the steam boat sailing around the bends of the river at normal speed against the majestic backdrop of the jungle. There are long takes of the steam boat actually being mechanically hauled over a steep piece of cleared jungle  over to the next river. This is actually happening. You have to marvel at it. Herzog, however, manages to make it seem fantastical at the same time. And the operatic score perfectly compliments the film. It symbolises civilisation of the wilderness as we see the indigenous tribe buy into Fitzgerald’s dreams. And the music teeters between tragedy and triumph as they overcome the various obstacles put in their path. Not only does he manage to make his money from rubber but he also satisfies his passion for opera as he builds the first opera house in the jungle.

Quite simply the images in this film, as in Aguirre, Wrath of God, burn into your skull. Once seen never forgotten. Iconic images you will not see the likes of elsewhere. Both films march to the beat of their own drums. They are multi-layered and complex but worth investing time in to stimulate your mind and your senses. In the current parlance, these are two films to see before you die.

Werner Herzog Box Set (5 Discs) - New DVD

Werner Herzog / Klaus Kinski Box Set (6 Discs) New DVD

Werner Herzog Box Set 1 Sealed 6 dvd RG 2 Klaus Kinski

Werner Herzog's MY BEST FIEND - All Region DVD

NOSFERATU.VAMPYRE.WERNER HERZOG.K. KINSKI.1st EDITION

Many people have read the books by Thomas Harris that introduced the serial killer, Dr Hannibal Lecter, to an unsuspecting world. Who can forget Anthony Hopkin’s performance in Silence of the Lambs when that story was transferred to the silver screen.

However, his first appearance was several years earlier in a small but pivotal cameo role in the first adaptation of Red Dragon called Manhunter. It was directed by a little known director at the time who was famous for creating the US cop series Miami Vice - Michael Mann. Many years later, after the success of the Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal, a big budget remake of Red Dragon was made starring Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes and Anthony Hopkins reprising his role as Dr Lecter.

But which was the better film?

Manhunter was a low key but stylish film on a relatively low budget. So no famous movie stars only good actors propelling along a spare and tense script. The audience is a key member of the film crew here as they are required to use their imagination throughout the film to fill in the gaps as you are told but not shown the grisly goings on. All the audience sees is the aftermath in all its gory detail. It is also a puzzle which engages the audience. How can they find the Tooth Fairy in time before he kills another innocent? The film is ground breaking as it introduces us to the techniques of forensic criminal investigation used by the FBI. I would go so far as to say that it is the forerunner of the CSI TV series. Heck, you’ve even got the actor who played Will Graham in Manhunter - William Petersen - as the head of the original CSI unit!

Manhunter is stylish too. Many film conventions are broken here. The scenes with Lecter are shown in his brilliant white prison cell. Glaring light and white backgrounds. Most monsters emerge from the dark. This one is shown in the light. Lecter himself is an educated, manipulative man who would not be out of place in a board room or a university. The architecture of the prison/ secure facility where Lecter is held is interesting again all white but labyrinthine. You see Graham trying to get out but seemingly going round and round. Is it a representation of Graham’s mind, is he going insane? There are lots of glossy Miami Vice-like touches in the beach house scenes as well.

But the key to this film is the script. It is maybe not the most faithful adaptation of the book out but concentrates on the key storyline to produce a gripping film. There is no scene that does not have a function, no dialogue that does not propel the story onward. A masterpiece of conciseness. The audience are willing participants in filling in the gaps. The technical forensic stuff is real and not presented for dummies. It is restless and sparks into life at the appropriate moments. The story works and the climaxes are satisfying.

So is it better than the big budget remake? My view is a resounding yes. Red Dragon boasts actors with a high pedigree and another performance by Anthony Hopkins as Lecter. But we tend to see in our mind the Lecter from the Silence of the Lambs. If you compare the performances by Hopkins and Brian Cox (Lecter in Manhunter) they are different but equally chilling in their own way. Cox is almost brash and arrogant and not very menacing until you see what he can do in the scene where he finds out Graham’s home address. Hopkins is charming and menacing but we know already what despicable things he can do from the previous films and this detracts a little from the menace. It’s almost like meeting an old friend again. We’re not frightened merely eager to see what he’s been up to! Red Dragon is possibly a film too far for Dr Hannibal Lecter.

For all its production values and good acting Red Dragon is a bit of a yawn. Red Dragon may be a a more faithful adaptation of the book but it’s too long and loses its tension several times. We are after all working in a different medium. We see the moment when Graham discovers Lecter as the serial killer and the reason why he left the FBI. The grisly scene is shown it all its technicolour glory as Graham is sliced up by Lecter but is it any scarier or better than the few terse references in Manhunter. In my view, less is more and the Red Dragon scene seems gratuitous.

In trying to spend more time looking at the Tooth Fairy’s character it drains the story of its lifeblood. Our monsters need to be unknown to make them scary. This also knocks the point of view out of whack. Which character is driving the film? Graham or the Tooth Fairy or Lecter? The script and story meander along looking for the directions to the end. For those of us who have seen Manhunter we know the story, we know the ending, we have the route map. We just shout at Red Dragon to get on with it.

At the end of the day I find Red Dragon a bit redundant. Why was it made anyway? Hollywood bosses trying to build a franchise from the Thomas Harris books? For those of you who have not seen Manhunter and or Red Dragon get them from your local DVD rental and check it out for yourself.

THOMAS HARRIS - HANNIBAL RISING - HARDBACK BOOK

Hannibal Rising Book | Thomas Harris

HANNIBAL RISING - THOMAS HARRIS

I'm OK, You're OK - Harris, Thomas NEW BOOK

Thomas Harris | Hannibal Rising | Book NEW *

In a previous post, I did a brief survey of screen writing software and made some recommendations. Well, I have just come across a new piece of software that purports to be the complete pre-production package taking your work through story development, screen play, shooting schedules etc. Even more important - it’s free and comes in different flavours (Windows, Linux, Mac)

It’s called Celtx. You can download it from www.celtx.com. It looks very useful from the screenshots and features described on the site. Has anyone used it? What did you think? Was it helpful? I will be downloading it and giving it a test drive shortly but I just thought it would be good to get other feedback as well.

That’s it for now.

FREE POST UK SCREENWRITING SCREENPLAY WRITE NEW BOOK

Screenwriting for a Global Market Selling Yo | A Horton

Screenwriting: The Sequence Approach - Gulino, Paul NEW

Screenwriting: The Sequence Approach - Gulino, Paul NEW

Screenwriting for Dummies Book | L. Schellhardt

As you can see from the first part of this I am a fan of the old style epics which are usually historical stories with universal themes involving large scale conflict, and where no expense is spared, either on the costumes, settings or numbers of extras to fill the  . However, apart from Gladiator and possibly Troy in the recent past, there are fewer of these types of epic that are made any more. Braveheart (and possibly Dances With Wolves and my favourite, Last of The Mohicans) might also slip into the bottom half of the category.

That is not to say that epic films are not made but they now tend to inhabit different genres. The definition of epic has changed slightly because you can now see Science Fiction epics, Western epics, War epics etc. They are not confined to historical subjects or reality for that matter but they still rely on big stories with universal themes and more CGI effects than any normal film can handle.

Just think of the impact of Star Wars at the time of its release.The first major science fiction epic. You might argue with me that 2001 - A Space Odyssey was really the first space epic but I contend that it paved the way for Star Wars. Nothing had really been seen like this before. The special effects were eye-popping, the scale of the sets huge and the galactic gallivanting and action sequences better than the most advanced computer game at the time.

Like all true epics you need to see it on a wide screen to appreciate its epic qualities. Each episode got bigger and more CGI laden (not always for the better) and pushed the envelope in terms of CGI and what the audience could take in visually. The story of a band of renegades taking on an evil empire is a classic story dressed up in science fiction garb. Like all good stories it follows the Hero’s Journey structure described by Christopher Vogler. Weird and wonderful (and most importantly, memorable) characters also litter the Star Wars films and the energy and superb sound and editing make it an assault on the senses and a roller-coaster ride of action.

No less impressive is The Matrix trilogy although the epic concept, story and visualisation tend to rely more and more on CGI as the mind boggling narrative loses steam and coherence in the third episode. Not to say that the final battle against the machines isn’t exciting and adrenalin-pumping, no siree.

But the real daddy of them all has to be The Lord of The Rings trilogy. This fantasy adventure that brings the well loved Tolkien story to the silver screen has to be the biggest labour of love and the greatest triumph in recent years. Peter Jackson and the cast quite simply have created a series of believable and engrossing characters that interact with each other an imaginary world that soon become an alternative reality throughout the playing time of the films. The films are fantastic but adult in their visualisation. This is not child’s play. And here we have an example of where the CGI definitely enhances the story telling and is not there just to show off. The journey of the Hobbits through the weird and wonderful landscapes imagined by Tolkien provides a strong backbone of narrative against which the colourful characters and sub plots are introduced. Large scale epic story, action and visuals connected to individual emotion and drama in a seamless presentation to the viewer. Not a weak link in the trilogy and something to truly marvel at.

What is interesting is that the true spirit of the epic is still alive …. and living in China. For the past few years, if you want to see a cast of thousands then you need look no further than some of the historical Chinese films such as Hero and The Curse of the Golden Flower. The rich sensual qualities of the fabrics and colours and the large scale settings coupled with balletic action and fighting sequences clearly put these films into the epic category. They carry on the oriental epic tradition elegantly promoted by Kurosawa in Kagemusha and Ran. Choreography and organisation rather than CGI are the order of the day but the final product is no less stirring and spectacular.

It will be interesting to see if the forthcoming Mongol, the story of Genghis Khan, furthers the epic tradition.

One of my great passions in movies is to watch epic films. You know the ones - grand scale, sweeping visuals and action and heroic stories. A good epic film needs the big screen to fit in the cast of thousands and the panoramic view of the action. There have been many epics made over the years (some good, some not so good) but the genre is still alive and well but mainly populated by CGI “casts of thousands”.

As a younger whipper snapper my early view of epics were that they were historical stories based on Greek or Roman tales and myths. I cannot tally up how many subtitled Italian “sword and sandal” epics I watched at the local cinema. Romulus and Remus, Helen of Troy, The Wooden Horse of Troy and many others. They were exciting, colourful, wide screen and action-laced. I can’t say, looking back, that any of them had any great merit but for a young lad of 12 years old they stirred the imagination.

But there were two that stood out during this period as worthy contenders for the best epic ever made. The first is Spartacus and I have mentioned this elsewhere in this blog. I can’t remember whether I blagged my way into the cinema as it was an adult certificate or whether my dad took me but anyway…It had all the trappings of a great epic film - wonderful story of one man against Rome, exquisite photography (you would expect that of Stanley Kubrick though), fine leading actor performance by Kirk Douglas (who also produced the film) and tremendous supporting cast filling in the gaps between the battle scenes. Ah, the battle scenes… Whenever I watch the final battle scene with the Roman legions marching I just marvel at it. It looks like a well-oiled machine but you can see every penny up there on the screen. A definite cast of thousands.

The second and perhaps underrated epic film is El Cid. An unusual subject for an epic at the time of its making produced by the maverick Samuel Bronston and directed by Anthony Mann. A Spanish nobleman unites warring kingdoms in medieval Spain to fight the invading Moors from Africa. The story was not well known but still remarkable for that. A complex story involving political intrigue and family jealousy and betrayal interwoven with grand scale conflict. Many reviewers over the years have said that it is the greatest epic film of all time as long as it keeps its mouth shut. Granted some of the dialogue is clunky and jars occasionally. But there is so much more to marvel at. I watched it on television again for the first time in many years the other day and I must say I was still wowed by it overall. The production design was breathtaking, sumptuous colours, designs and fabrics popping out of the screen. Incredible locations and interiors. I used to think that some of the acting was over the top but I now realise that the actors were fighting to be noticed in the midst of such a visual back drop. Nevertheless, with a strong lead performance from the recently-deceased Charlton Heston and excellent supporting cast it was bound to be a winner. The cream on top of the cake was the action. Robust, bloody and spectacular. The scale and grandeur were there to see. The sight of thousands of Moors marching along the sandy crescent towards Valencia was frightening and blood curdling to a young boy immersed in the story. And the ending is unforgettable with The Cid (already dead but strapped to his horse) leading out his men to meet the Moors in battle and riding away along the sand into the distance after the battle is won. If there is a more iconic scene in a film let me know.

I did watch Ben Hur around the same time but it did not have quite the same impact on me as these two films.

As I grew older two more epic films had an impact on me. They were both directed by the same man, Sergei Bondarchuk. The first was his Russian version of War and Peace by Lev Tolstoy. Now I should say at the start this is not my favourite by any means - it is long (I saw it originally it in two three and a half hour segments) and fairly boring in places unless you are fan of the book. But it sprung into life in the battle scenes. His depiction of the battle of Borodino was amazing and the final shot as the camera tracked back and upwards from just a couple of bodies to show literally thousands of bodies on the battlefield was just heart stopping. A similar device was used in Kurosawa’s Kagemusha as the extent of the carnage is shown and the rivers running red with blood. His photography of the cavalrymen riding into battle with their lances created a fantastic tension and during parts of the battle he freeze framed scenes to make them look like portraits that could be hung in an art gallery.

In the second film, Bondarchuk concentrated on his strengths and produced the rousing Waterloo. More battle action and memorable scenes playing out the events that lead to a very detailed and rousing climax. Again the cavalry scenes were brilliantly realised and the choreographed splendour of the infantry made for action on an epic scale. Aerial shots of the battle field show how difficult it must have been to coordinate the action and make it believable. Again, the film doesn’t get into my top three because there are moments in the film where the momentum of the story is lost but for dramatic and full on epic action in the battle scenes it is hard to beat it.

So little time, so many epics…….

Well, I did watch it again with my wife this time. It is a film that bears watching again and I appreciated much more the good points of the film. However, I still stand by my comments about the ending.

The beginning scenes give you all the clues to the film in a really cinematic way. The ambiguous opening shot of the country mansion pulls back to reveal a doll’s house. Nothing is really as it seems. The scenes repeated from different points of view. The typewriter clack on the soundtrack morphing into the music. Very much literary references. And one of the things I missed but my wife picked up on quickly - the relationship between Robbie and Cecilia. Nothing is said in the narrative but again the clues are there. Robbie, the lowly cook’s son has been financed in his education by the now dead head of the household and his mother’s assertion that Robbie was “nothing like his father” suggest that there has been a liaison in the past between the master and the cook that produced Robbie. So maybe there is more of the forbidden love element than I originally thought with Robbie and Cecilia being related. Incestuous goings on amongst the gentry - that wouldn’t do!

One element of the film that my wife and I both agreed could have been improved was the sound quality. As most of the dialogue was fast and of the Noel Coward variety, clear sound was essential but we kept missing key lines in the film and having to ask each other what did they just say.

I watched the final half hour carefully again and still feel duped. The director Joe Wright may retort that you were warned during the first half of the film that things were not as they seem. So, why were you not sceptical about the latter scenes in the hospital and the scene at Cecilia’s flat? My response would be that there were no obvious clues in these scenes as there had been in previous scenes. Deliberately so to make the ending that much more unexpected. I was interpreting it as straight forward narrative and genre. A sneaky trick.

The final confessional by the dying Briony I understood better her arguments but I still say that it was a weak gesture that would mean nothing to anyone except her. Atonement, to me, means acknowledging your mistakes, your sins, and trying your best to put them right. Her tragedy was that she could not put them right for Robbie and Cecilia in real life. But she could have confessed to Robbie’s mother. She could have done the same to her mother (although we are told that the episode had been swept under the carpet). But she didn’t and what she did was far little too late and comes across as self serving only. She could have lived with her conscience after confessing better but might have had to endure the wrath or anger of real people still alive. Instead she retreats into a fictional world of “what might have been” for what seems to have been the rest of her life. Maybe that was her penance for her dreadful act. Penance - now that would have been a better title.

 I watched Atonement on DVD for the first time last week. I was curious to see why there was so much fuss and Oscar buzz about a British period piece set around the second world war. I also had a local interest as the much-heralded, one take scene of the beach at Dunkirk was filmed in Redcar just down the road from where I live.

The film directed by Joe Wright is based on the book by Ian McEwan and displays its literary heritage from the start. It is a strange film in terms of structure and themes. The UK film magazine Empire described it as a manor house mystery followed by war story and a kitchen sink drama ended by a confessional piece to camera. I have to agree mostly and it does feel a little disjointed. To its credit, the acting all round is superb - especially Keira Knightley and James McAvoy - and provides oil for the clunky story structure to slide around on.

The themes of class and forbidden and repressed love are well explored in the opening half of the film. But as you find out from the early moments of the film not all is what it seems. The same scene in the fountain is shown from two different viewpoints to emphasise the differing perceptions of the main protagonists and lead the way to the dramatic and fatal course of action that follows. 

In many ways the standout scene is the Dunkirk beach tracking shot where Robbie is walking around the chaos and carnage but it is almost superfluous. It seems out of place. Its scale is epic and whilst interesting and eye popping it does not add that much to the telling of the story. Maybe it was put there to distract the audience from the loose narrative. It belongs in a different film.

I suppose the only film that I could compare it to would be Cold Mountain. There is a similar story of two fledgling lovers who have never really consummated their love being torn apart by war. Both films are about what might have been and what was. Both films are adaptations of books and I must say that Atonement seems to have had the more difficult birth. Beautiful photography and the depiction of the thirties setting (complete with the sort of accents you would expect from a Noel Coward film of the time) help the film enormously. It is definitely not without its merits.

However, the penultimate act deceives the audience and makes the ending that much more shocking and tragic. I believe it is a fatal flaw that stops it from being a really great film. Whilst it is a clever and a contrived device both in a literary and cinematic sense it frustrated me personally big time. Many reviewers have applauded the ending and see it as a ray of hope in a bleak emotional landscape. I don’t see it that way. The act of atonement itself is not strong enough, sincere enough or romantic enough to satisfy a film audience - well, not this member of that audience. I find the ending more tragic and bleak for all concerned. And the atonement by the girl (now a famous writer) is weak and selfish and all the less sincere for it taking so long to surface. She has given the two ill-fated lovers a future through her last novel, one that they never had in real life. A romantic gesture? But it helps no one, other than to salve her own conscience before she dies. 

I came away from the film feeling short changed in the emotional stakes and unsatisfied. Because of the ending, it did not have the emotional power of say The English Patient and I just felt a little confused and frustrated. Maybe in the literary world such an ending is seen as intelligent and smart but as a film there was a chance for a really powerful ending that went begging. Maybe that’s where too literal an adaptation works against the film narrative.

I will watch it again to see whether I have been too hard on the film and it won’t be a hardship as in many respects it is one of the best British films of this decade.